Geekosystem's Sci-Fi Scenarios Aren't as Far-Fetched as You Think

"Who owns the moon?" is the second most common question I get when I tell people I studied space law. "Space law: that's a thing?" is the first.

(No one, and yes.)

The electronic magazine Geekosystem ran a great article today about space law, a primer on the subject for your average non-lawyer. It's a great introduction for people who have never heard of space law, or who are wondering just what law there is in space. The interview portion also includes two extremely knowledgeable people I've had the pleasure of working with, Elsbeth Magilton and Frans von der Dunk. And I'm not just saying that because one of them quoted me. (I have never met the third interviewee, Julie McMahon, but, since she has the good sense to be a space law buff, I assume good things about her as well.)

Geekosystem, of course, got to the good stuff quickly. Star Wars. Gravity. Avatar. How do these movies stack up with space law? These are things that people really care about. I've written before about how science fiction says a lot about our culture, and literature can offer us important insights into our society.

But science fiction is just that: fiction. Star Wars and Avatar are unrealistic. (Gravity, although it gets a lot wrong on the science, highlights some real issues.) Questions like "Who is responsible for the space junk left over from blowing up the Death Star?" and "Can the Resources Development Administration be held responsible for damaging the Tree of Souls?" are fun, but fantastical. Right?

Wrong. They aren't as far-fetched as you think.

Why Into Darkness Retroactively Makes Star Trek Better

(This post is going to spoil the daylights out of the new Star Trek movie. I'll put all the spoilers after the jump, but, if you haven't seen the film and have managed to avoid the big spoilers so far, consider yourself warned.)

Science fiction is important. Our fiction says a lot about our society, and our science fiction says a lot about what we want (or don't want) for our future. Star Trek Into Darkness is a terrific example of how our society shapes our fiction, and the other way around. You need look no farther than the dedication in the credits to see how wrapped up in social commentary our fiction is.

Star Trek Into Darkness was a moderate box office success. The film had mixed reception from both critics and fans, who largely hailed it as a good popcorn flick but lacking in the lore and depth that made the original Star Trek great. One major criticism of the movie is that it buys too much into Hollywood "guy culture" mythology, for a lack of strong female characters.

Discussion about race, on the other hand, has been scant, but not entirely favorable. I want to focus on one casting choice in particular, however, and how a little bit of revisionist history makes the whole Star Trek franchise more nuanced.

And seriously, stop reading here if you do not want the movie spoiled.